I find people that sometimes forget (or don't know) that the star-nut + top-cap is merely for pre-loading the bearings, to take out slop, and that it is the stem which actually holds everything together.

Don't forget to properly torque the stem bolts down on the steerer or it'll gain slop over time no matter how correctly set initially.

Curious - what made you switch from a Tallboy to a 95? I rode the 95 and liked it. I haven't demo'd a Tallboy yet but wanted to for comparison.

Not sure who this is directed to - but I'll bite since I have both bikes. The Yeti didn't replace the tallboy for me, it was in addition to. Was looking for a longer travel 29er (I have the 100mm original tallboy with 110mm fork). I wanted the long-travel tallboy, but at the time Santa Cruz was completing full bike orders first, so it wasn't really available as a frame only, and they also didn't product the XXL size, which is what I ride on the original tallboy. Last - I hate both color schemes on the tallboy LT.

In terms of differences - handling is the biggest. I have a 140mm fork on the Yeti, and with its slack headtube, it handles significantly differently than the tallboy. I use the TALAS setting on climbs, which helps, but once Push is able to work on 34 forks, I may convert it to a float at 130mm. Might also consider an "angle set" to steepen it slightly. Other than that - Yeti is maybe slightly more efficient suspension design, but that is offset by the heavier weight vs the tallboy IMO (my Yeti is light - around 27lbs, but my tallboy is 24). Travel feels bottomless compared to the Tallboy, and pedal strikes are more rare.

If/when the carbon SB95 comes out, it could end up replacing both bikes.

Curious - what made you switch from a Tallboy to a 95? I rode the 95 and liked it. I haven't demo'd a Tallboy yet but wanted to for comparison.

Never owned the tallboy but had a chance to ride the Tallboy C, Tallboy LTC, Kona & SB95 all back to back. Then a few weeks later test rode again before laying money down. In my opinion it seemed as if the SB95 was the most balanced out of the group.

Very short impression of each.
Tallboy C - Really liked the handling but wanted long travel.

Tallboy LTC - Steering felt slow & unbalanced

Kona - Liked the ride, suspension felt soft for climbing, very similar to my old bike I was replacing

SB95 - Pedaled well, felt balanced and suspension followed the trail no matter how poorly I ride it.

Again this was only one individuals impression of a few bikes, others may like another model over another. It is all a personal choice on what bike feels better.

Thanks for the reply. Curious - how'd you get your 95 down to 27 lbs? If I go with the Yeti, I'll swap out for the carbon frame later this year when the arrive. I talked to corp and they guessed mid-summer -> Interbike...

Originally Posted by RWGreen

Not sure who this is directed to - but I'll bite since I have both bikes. The Yeti didn't replace the tallboy for me, it was in addition to. Was looking for a longer travel 29er (I have the 100mm original tallboy with 110mm fork). I wanted the long-travel tallboy, but at the time Santa Cruz was completing full bike orders first, so it wasn't really available as a frame only, and they also didn't product the XXL size, which is what I ride on the original tallboy. Last - I hate both color schemes on the tallboy LT.

In terms of differences - handling is the biggest. I have a 140mm fork on the Yeti, and with its slack headtube, it handles significantly differently than the tallboy. I use the TALAS setting on climbs, which helps, but once Push is able to work on 34 forks, I may convert it to a float at 130mm. Might also consider an "angle set" to steepen it slightly. Other than that - Yeti is maybe slightly more efficient suspension design, but that is offset by the heavier weight vs the tallboy IMO (my Yeti is light - around 27lbs, but my tallboy is 24). Travel feels bottomless compared to the Tallboy, and pedal strikes are more rare.

If/when the carbon SB95 comes out, it could end up replacing both bikes.

I thought the Tallboy had more a bottomless feel, but the Yeti has smoother predictable travel. I don't feel like I have more than 5" of travel, especially when landing flat, but it feels like a quality 5" of travel, in regards to finding traction and smoothing out the trail, and doing so without interfering your rhythm and flow nor requiring you to work with it to get the most out of it. Yeti has a more refined and more efficient pedaling in the saddle feel--it ain't for out of the saddle mashers and therefore lacks the want to mash steadily out of the saddle, but it's no worse than any other "long travel" Yeti model. There's plush, and then there's smooth and controlled. It's like the difference between a beginner's squishy RockShox fork and a skilled rider's Fox fork to me, with the Yeti sort of in between with a "coil feel" and the TB on the old Fox air fork end. It doesn't disagree with short intense accelerations to get up to speed, though it tells you to sit back in the saddle once your speed starts to plateau. Totally agree on lack of pedal strikes compared to the TBc. Yeti is also a more capable technical climber for sure; I've cleared climbs I never have before on any other bike, even with a lower fitness level than ever. It still gets pedal strikes though, but I feel they're more my fault than the bike's, since I'm used to worse.

The TB LTc's biggest pluses are its out of the saddle pedaling feel, combined with its lower weight, for me. It feels responsive and made the Yeti feel like a dog, at least when trying to copy the same out of the saddle and on the gas riding style as the TB LTc, but the Yeti felt better all around. Impressed me how well the SB95 handled things over the TB LTc, making me a better rider. Feels like the LTc tries to be a "hare" and the SB95 is the turtle, except the TB LTc doesn't compare to other bikes that do a better job as being a hare, and it wasn't what I was looking for in a longer travel 29er. The pedaling on it made it feel awkward on the climbs, when in the saddle. If I were in a group and were behind someone, it'd have a seriously hard time trackstanding if the rider in front decided to stop and dismount, and its steering would flop so much when trying to go around that you'd be zig-zagging up without too much hope for recovery, esp if it were a steel singletrack climb with ruts; it's not bad on gentle fireroad climbs though. It's what I call a bike with personality--editors call it a bike that's not for everyone for a good reason. Feels much more fun to ride when not mixed in a group, as it likes to have room to go at its own pace; you can group ride it, but it will gravitate to wanting to be in front or chasing riders much faster and skilled than you.

That all said, the Intense Spider 29 Comp is like the in betweener of the TB LTc and SB95. Kinda wish I went that route instead, but it came out after I bought the SB95. Can't say anything really bad about it--it seriously is the only bike that I find is above the SB95 for SoCal trails, erasing thoughts of the 66c and 27.5 bikes. It basically is like the SB95 but feels more responsive, lighter, and encourages out-of-the-saddle stints without really compromising on anything else.

Ah, 1x10 and XX and fancy cranks (over XT) helps explain the low weight. My wheels aren't that light either, at 1650ish, due to the portly Chris King hubs.

bear, I broke my Bionicon guide, despite the 3rd zip-tie. Those things are just fragile, I guess. Didn't even do anything really rough to make it break off, but I did ride really rough after it broke off and didn't miss it having it. The SB95 doesn't seem to benefit from it much at all, judging from that experience. You're still riding without one, right?

Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I liked that in the 95 I never got out of the saddle on climbs. I want to do some racing and my past experience I know getting out of the saddle always lead to fatigue. I'm coming from a '96 GT hardtail.

I'm going to try and ride a TB next week. Impossible to find an Intense, Pivot, Transition, etc. in ATL. Also trying to rule out 650 but cant find one of those either. I think the high travel FS 29er is right for what I'm doing - N Ga trail riding and racing...

I thought the Tallboy had more a bottomless feel, but the Yeti has smoother predictable travel. I don't feel like I have more than 5" of travel, especially when landing flat, but it feels like a quality 5" of travel, in regards to finding traction and smoothing out the trail, and doing so without interfering your rhythm and flow nor requiring you to work with it to get the most out of it. Yeti has a more refined and more efficient pedaling in the saddle feel--it ain't for out of the saddle mashers and therefore lacks the want to mash steadily out of the saddle, but it's no worse than any other "long travel" Yeti model. There's plush, and then there's smooth and controlled. It's like the difference between a beginner's squishy RockShox fork and a skilled rider's Fox fork to me, with the Yeti sort of in between with a "coil feel" and the TB on the old Fox air fork end. It doesn't disagree with short intense accelerations to get up to speed, though it tells you to sit back in the saddle once your speed starts to plateau. Totally agree on lack of pedal strikes compared to the TBc. Yeti is also a more capable technical climber for sure; I've cleared climbs I never have before on any other bike, even with a lower fitness level than ever. It still gets pedal strikes though, but I feel they're more my fault than the bike's, since I'm used to worse.

The TB LTc's biggest pluses are its out of the saddle pedaling feel, combined with its lower weight, for me. It feels responsive and made the Yeti feel like a dog, at least when trying to copy the same out of the saddle and on the gas riding style as the TB LTc, but the Yeti felt better all around. Impressed me how well the SB95 handled things over the TB LTc, making me a better rider. Feels like the LTc tries to be a "hare" and the SB95 is the turtle, except the TB LTc doesn't compare to other bikes that do a better job as being a hare, and it wasn't what I was looking for in a longer travel 29er. The pedaling on it made it feel awkward on the climbs, when in the saddle. If I were in a group and were behind someone, it'd have a seriously hard time trackstanding if the rider in front decided to stop and dismount, and its steering would flop so much when trying to go around that you'd be zig-zagging up without too much hope for recovery, esp if it were a steel singletrack climb with ruts; it's not bad on gentle fireroad climbs though. It's what I call a bike with personality--editors call it a bike that's not for everyone for a good reason. Feels much more fun to ride when not mixed in a group, as it likes to have room to go at its own pace; you can group ride it, but it will gravitate to wanting to be in front or chasing riders much faster and skilled than you.

That all said, the Intense Spider 29 Comp is like the in betweener of the TB LTc and SB95. Kinda wish I went that route instead, but it came out after I bought the SB95. Can't say anything really bad about it--it seriously is the only bike that I find is above the SB95 for SoCal trails, erasing thoughts of the 66c and 27.5 bikes. It basically is like the SB95 but feels more responsive, lighter, and encourages out-of-the-saddle stints without really compromising on anything else.

I am in the middle of winter refresh with the bike, and am switching to a Zee rear derailleur so am going to try w/o the bionicon first.

I swapped stock rear der for an XT Shadow Plus- really quieted the drive train down (as in virtually no chain slap) and have not had an issue dropping chain since (knock wood). Ride the SB mostly on BCGB, City Park, etc, so plenty of chunk and ledges.

I got a chance to sit on a 650 yesterday. Hard to notice the difference in a 26. The more I ride the SB, the more I realize the advantages of the big wheels out-way the disadvantage. My only issue is getting the bike around on tight switchbacks like I do on the 66. I have to slow it down sometimes and force the wheel a bit more. Training and new technique will help I'm sure. Also I've read moving the fork to 140 to slack the HT angle can help that. I do like flicking the big wheels though.

Originally Posted by lwalton

Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I liked that in the 95 I never got out of the saddle on climbs. I want to do some racing and my past experience I know getting out of the saddle always lead to fatigue. I'm coming from a '96 GT hardtail.

I'm going to try and ride a TB next week. Impossible to find an Intense, Pivot, Transition, etc. in ATL. Also trying to rule out 650 but cant find one of those either. I think the high travel FS 29er is right for what I'm doing - N Ga trail riding and racing...

I like the slightly increased flickability at 120, it's not a huge difference but it is there. I think climbing switchbacks are a bit easier at 120, i'm not sure there's a material difference downhill. If the turn is VERY short then the "fall into the turn" technique works well for me - starting out wide on the outside and leaning/turning-in abruptly to cut the corner. If the front tire hangs up i'm on my face (at 1 mph), but that doesn't often happen.

Come spring I am thinking of making a 10mm spacer and setting my fork to 130 and splitting the difference. ;^)

I am thinking of pressing the button on a SB95 which will be my first Yeti after a test ride yesterday.

At the moment I am looking at my build spec and I would love to know how you get a Large frame to get anywhere near some of the weights quoted on this thread!! 30lbs I can almost believe but anything around 28lbs is surely just imagination?

Would someone post some pictures of the bike in size Large with pedals on actual digital scales to prove these claims and tell me the spec?

I am thinking of pressing the button on a SB95 which will be my first Yeti after a test ride yesterday.

At the moment I am looking at my build spec and I would love to know how you get a Large frame to get anywhere near some of the weights quoted on this thread!! 30lbs I can almost believe but anything around 28lbs is surely just imagination?

Would someone post some pictures of the bike in size Large with pedals on actual digital scales to prove these claims and tell me the spec?

Absolutely possible. I got mine down to 28 pounds WITH a dropper post, this means around 27 pounds without. I could even go less, but ther are certain things I am not going to do with out.

Have you got a picture on actual scales? The build on your bike is very serious and you have a medium frame which will equate to being a little lighter my post was aimed at the more normal builds with Stans wheels and XT groupset etc.

Have you got a picture on actual scales? The build on your bike is very serious and you have a medium frame which will equate to being a little lighter my post was aimed at the more normal builds with Stans wheels and XT groupset etc.

Have you got a picture on actual scales? The build on your bike is very serious and you have a medium frame which will equate to being a little lighter my post was aimed at the more normal builds with Stans wheels and XT groupset etc.

if you want an SB-95 (large) to come in at 27-28 lbs you're probably gonna have to throw some money at it. average build/average cost = average weight. i threw a little money at mine, but mainly i got the weight down by doing a 1x10 set-up and using light-ish weight wheels. no Ti bolt kits, didn't cut my seat post down, etc... i'm also not running a dropper post... but i'd like one.

i'm sure you could get an SB-95 down under 25 lbs, but would it be really rideable/durable/practical? is the extra several grand worth the few pounds saved? if spending your way to a much lower weight is what you're looking at.. you need to look at the carbon version, or a different bike altogether. good luck!

There are plenty of documented builds here in the 28lb range. Mine is right at 28lbs with a basic 1x10 build, a light set of wheels/tires (400g rims/600g tires), and a Reba fork. Seriously, people need pictures of scale readouts??